MovieChat Forums > Twelve O'Clock High (1950) Discussion > Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

posted 19 years ago by pchas-1
80 replies | jump to latest

I am well aware that 12 O'Clock High is considered a masterpiece, but I find the character of Brig. Gen. Frank Savage (Gregory Peck) repellant to the point of loathsomeness, which undermines this otherwise well-made production.

Consider: Col. Keith Davenport (well-played by Gary Merrill) the commanding officer of a weary and battle-fatigued unit is removed from his command by Savage, who had been Davenport's friend. What did Davenport do wrong? In Savage's words: "He's a first rate guy who over-identifies with his men." As played by Gregory Peck, Savage is the most authoritarian martinet this side of Capt. Queeg. Unsurprisingly, every airman puts in for a transfer out of the unit. Aware that this will make him look bad, he conspires with his desk jockey ground officer Maj. Harry Stovall (Dean Jagger) to delay the transfers while he works to improve the units performance, and in doing so build cohesion and morale. When the Inspector General arrives, Savage is cleaning off his desk, sure that he will lose his command and be sent back to the Pentagon. But no, every man has cancelled his transfer request and Savage stays. I found this situation highly unlikely, considering that Savage had 1) relieved the popular Davenport of his command, 2) closed the Officer's club, 3) busted several of the airmen down a couple of ranks and 4) told them in a pep talk that they should think of themselves as dead men. I think it would be far more likely that they would have transferred out of the unit to get away from that neurotic mess of a general and that Savage would have been transferred to Washington. I was positively overjoyed when Savage finally broke down and was unable to carry out a mission.

What I find amazing is that several people in the comments said they used this film for leadership training (!) Maybe Savage's techniques work in the military, but anyone who tried to act that way in most modern organizations would find themselves in line at the unemployment office.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] randy-baker 19 years ago

Hi Patrick,

I'm the guy MWK referred to...

My organization, the Center for Leadership Studies has advanced a leadership model called Situational Leadership®. It’s a simple behavioral model that helps people to increase the probability of successful and effective leadership at a transactional level. This model has grown to become to the most prevalent leadership system around the world in terms of the number of people that have gone through a course or program. Our clients range from the military and government to large multinationals to non-profits. They use our materials, which include film case studies to help people to learn to let their leader behavior be guided by the needs of their followers (and not what’s comfortable or the cultural norm for that organization.) In an industry dominated by flavor-of-the month leadership programs trainers in top organizations have embraced what I’d liken to a back to basic approach to leadership training mainly because it learners prefer it and because it works. The Situational Leadership model has been used for 40 years and has been adapted to sales, service, coaching and parenting now. This is not a sales pitch Patrick; I’m just trying to create some context here.

We’ve licensed and use the film Twelve O’Clock High as a film case study to help people to see the model in action…the speed of life if you will. For thirty years it has been extremely effective at helping people that I would characterize as concrete learners to gain some confidence and in applying this model and to practice using it. It resonates with executive leaders that are faced with challenges that arise from organizations that are employing new technology, where performance has slipped, where followers have been lead the way they wanted and not the way they needed…and a whole bunch of other angles. In a 1999 survey Inc. Magazine conducted TOCH was cited as the film that has had the greatest impact on the respondents’ leadership style. There were 15-20 other firms on the list and TOCH came out far ahead of all the others.

First off, let me just acknowledge that perception is everything when it come to leadership style. A big part of what we do at CLS involves giving people a chance to have followers evaluate their style and adaptability as a leader. Were you to offer Savage feedback based on what you see in the film, it would not be wrong. Savage’s character was based on General Frank Armstrong, AKA The Fireman. Some under his command found him to be a manipulative martinet. Most however came to regard him as the best leader they ever worked under. (A slight digression: the Situational Leadership model is not about hierarchical leadership – it’s about bringing influence to bear up, down and across in an organization – it helps people to lead their peers and their “boss” as well. Savage does a bit of this in the film.) History has come to regard Armstrong as an both an leader and a Situational Leader. Savage took over a unit that had just lost 53 men and turned it around and at the same time, helped to make the most of what was probably not a great strategy: daylight precision bombing. I think what impresses me most about the Savage’s performance is that it was obviously difficult for him to adapt his behavior to take on the command and control stance you focus on during the middle of the film. His comfortable style is evident in the first part of the film, prior to him taking command of the 918th a persuading, coaching style. More than any other scene in the movie, when he stops his vehicle outside the gate for smoke with Ernie and then proceeds to put on his game face (the martinet I suppose) just before he enters the base is strikes a nerve with any leader that has had to do things they don’t really want to do.

The reality is that at the end of his command at the 918th (in reality it was the 306th) Frank Armstrong was dropped by a bleeding ulcer and not some psychological break. It cost him plenty to behave in a way that met the needs of his group. At the end of the film he is deep into delegation. This is another style that did not come naturally to him. It is what the group needed however.

We’ve had some behavioral scientists and top industry people in to analyze the film and in the end, they feel that Pritchard left both Davenport and Savage (funny how their names capture the essence of their leadership styles: Couch-man and Blowtorch) in there too long. In combat, you do the best you can with what you have. It’s not that different in business. Savage is a turn-around-guy. The one you bring when you’re on fire. His strategies were geared to achieve short-term goals. Leaders like Savage are in high demand all over the world but just for a while and then they move on. If they hang around too long, you’re right, they end up unemployed….but just for a little while!

There are a bunch of “situational” concepts and practices in evidence throughout the film that make this a favorite with leaders looking for emotionally charged learning. If you want a copy of an introductory text that we use as a lens to analyze and interpret this film, shoot me your snail mail address.

This film nearly came to market with the name, Maximum Effort. Balancing “getting the job done” with “maintaining a positive work environment” is what this film portrays better than any other I have seen. Savage achieved Maximum Effort and in my world, people want to know all they can about that. I think you might be surprised how many people in many organizations where jobs are being outsourced or otherwise challenged feel this movie captures the essence of their reality. This week at a large Aerospace firm in Phoenix there were tears on the faces of several of the participants when the lights came up on this case study. They are fighting to keep their jobs…their lives and nothing less that great leadership is going to get them through this.

I’ve led something like 250 days of training with this film and most people find Savage to be someone worthy of considerable respect and admiration. That you see it different is a good thing in terms of challenging authority and the status quo. I’ll be interested in hearing your take on this.

Sincerely,

Randy Baker
Center for Leadership Studies
230 West 3rd Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
800.330.2840 / 760.741.6595 Intl.
www.situational.com

[–] smiley-39 19 years ago

Hello, randy-baker.

A few years ago I got hold of a 1989 paperback reprint of "Twelve O'Clock High". There was a Forward in this copy written by Brigadier General Paul Tibbets who at the time was a Squadron Commander with the 306th Bomb Group at Thurleigh in Bedfordshire when Colonel Frank Armstrong was the Group CO. He too stated that Colonel Armstrong did not crack up.

All the best. smiley-39.

[–] keith-264 19 years ago

I saw this again a few years ago and thought it was marvellous-a far cry from a Hollywood flag waver. Given the film, I thought that the crack up at the end was a vindication of the character's humanity. I've seen lots of British films set in the war made in the 50's which have the 'drama-documentary' feel to them and are all the better for it. Nice to see that Hollywood can do a real film once in a while.

Marlon the Cat 1991-17th October 2005

[–] randy-baker 17 years ago

Since I first posted I managed to connect with Frank Armstrong's "favorite niece" Mary. She confirmed that Uncle Frank did not "crack up". She confirmed it was a bleeding ulcer...probably that English food he was eating! :) Please - no hate...I'm kidding. I like it!

- Randy

[–] rwsmith29456 15 years ago

Well, during wartime the British diet was none too good. I suspect, though, that our guys over there had a better diet courtesy of the U.S armed services.

[–] rockmail 12 years ago

Just a general note for both of you, ulcer have been proven to be caused by a virus and not food or stress. Food and stress-relief can help in the treatment of symptoms, but the virus must be eliminated with medication.

[–] FilioScotia 11 years ago

Actually, ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not a virus. Bacteria can be treated with anti-biotics. Viruses cannot be treated with anti-biotics.

Jesus is coming. Look busy.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] taipan-12 19 years ago

Situational Leadership is but one model of leadership that works for some but not universally. There are lots of other good ones as well. And if all else fails take Sun Tzu's advice: "treat your soldiers like your children and they will follow you to the ends of the earth". Savage was portrayed as Hollywood liked to see its heros when the film was made and any resemblance to the way real men react is purely co-incidental! And finally the USAAF comprised mainly civilians who volunteered to fight in the war. There were very few professional aviators and by the time shown in the film were mostly dead. No wonder the bomber crews had such a hard time of it.

[–] buckboard 19 years ago

There is no way of proving or disproving your assertions about Hollywood portrayals influencing this film. But the scriptwriters, Bartlett and Lay, were there when it took place. Both had first-hand acquaintance with the subject matter. Both knew al the figures portrayed. Both took their screenplay from the novel they wrote together, which in turn had much material lifted verbatim from official after-action reports they wrote.

Bartlett was the Hollywood writer, well-known before the war, and was one of "Eaker's Amateurs," a group of civilians brought in for staff support of the 8th Air Force by General Ira Eaker (the model for General Pritchard in the film). Beirne Lay was one of the original seven members of the 8th Air Force who snuck into London in February 1942 by way of Lisbon, in civilian clothes, to begin setting up American air operations. Lay went on to command the 487th Bomb Group in the spring of 1944. He was shot down by flak on May 11, 1944 over Chaumont, France leading the 92nd Combat Wing on a mission to bomb rail yards but evaded captured and returned to England (as a result of faulty navigation, mirroring a situation in the movie).

I doubt if either of these two men would dimish the achievements of men they knew and admired by Hollywood-izing their character.

[–] taipan-12 19 years ago

Thanks for this. You have a great deal of knowledge on such matters. I served in the Royal Australian Airforce and found my colleagues, many who had seen action in Vietnam, to be much more laid back and philosophical than the characters in TOH and it was this that made me question the way they were portrayed. But the comparison may not be entirely apt as the RAAF guys were professional flyers rather than civilians in uniform enlisted for the duration. 1949 was pretty close to the war's end and so portrayals by Hollywood were generally over egged, partly to establish the thread of the story and the emotional climate quickly for an audience not used to Hollywood being anything other than the "spin doctors" of federal government policy. It also needs remembering that the US was very soon to embark on a UN-sanctioned war in Korea and it was obvious to the government even in 1949 that the US would have to intervene. This would require new recruiting as the US forces had started to wind right down since 1945 and positive messages about WW2 would help this.
Anyway I really enjoyed your response. I am sure that the scriptwriters wouldn't wish to diminish the achievements. But facts and Hollywood make rather uncomfortable bedfellows in my view. What do you think?

[–] buckboard 19 years ago

You make a very good point about Hollywood and facts--I think it's usually more true than not that Hollywood always has and continues to take liberties, i.e. "Never let a fact get in the way of a good story".

I might add that there is an irony to the conversion of the novel to the silver screen. Savage in the novel was a composite of three group commanders, all of whom were originally among the first staff members of the 8th Air Force and well-known to both Bartlett and Lay. One of those was Fred Castle, who was one of the 7 officers who set up 8AF, rose from captain to general, became a wing commander, and won the Medal of Honor posthumously at Christmas 1944. The primary model for Savage, of course, was General Frank Armstrong--who was married and had a child, and who was devoted to his family. In the novel Bartlett and Lay made Savage single (like Castle) and gave him a love interest. IMO the entire romance was a distraction and the authors wisely omitted it from the screenplay--in effect de-Hollywood-izing the script!

My knowledge about this movie comes from a life-long interest in the 8th Air Force and in this movie. I have a rather extensive library of books about the 8th gathered over forty years, including all of "The Mighty Eighth" series by Roger Freeman, and the irony is that while Freeman documents the operational aspects throughly, the "behind-the-scenes" story has to be gleaned from anecdotes in his and other sources. For me the stories of all these men, intertwined and flowing through the years, ending for some in triumph and for some in sadness, is more fascinating than any nnovel, Twelve O'Clock High included.

[–] oz12325 19 years ago

I would suggest that the Vietnam generation you knew were mostly the sons of the WWII generation--the subjects of the film, TOH. As a generation, we (the Vietnam people) were indeed more laid back than our parents. We were gifted with that luxury by those who subjugated Hitler and Tojo a generation earlier. We, the Vietnam generation, knew that our shores were under no particular threat, save for the ever-present Russian ICBM launch possibility. With no particular threat to our shores and with no particular defense against an ICBM shower, I think we as a generation simply kicked back and took life as it came and were faced with essentially nothing of any consequence by way of a threat to life and to our freedom. My father was a two-tour flight officer veteran of the Eighth, so I know what I know about the events portrayed in TOH from my 54-years with him. It is hard for me to find much to criticize in the film other than a small bit of hokey acting by some of the minor characters, but even that is consistent with the time and with those people. Many of them, I think, had trouble expressing emotions and few of them ever reached a position in life where they could emulate a laid-back life style that their children assumed. Before WWII they grew up during the Depression--by the time their personalities were fully formed, they had experienced more than any generation since theirs and most of them before. And for the gent that is repelled by and loathes the leadership style portrayed in the TOH film, let me suggest he has a look at the "Junction Boys" for a pretty good portrayal at how tough leadership was practiced by Bear Bryant just after WWII. I have some experience with that also--and that film is pretty accurate on the subject of tough, effective leadership of young people.

[–] paulhilts 15 years ago

Taipan, take a look at the interviews with the real E Company personnel included in "Band of Brothers." Virtually all of them *hated* Capt Silver personally, but virtually every one of them acknowledges that without Silver's influence they would not have been the soldiers they became.
I have been researching the 5th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Duryee's Zouaves) from the American Civil War, and their memoirs and letters home all reflect the same kind of feeling. The colonel, Abram Duryee, was a martinet, as were his successors G.K. Warren and Hiram Duryea (not related). The soldiers resented the commanders' attitudes, but nine generals came from the ranks of the 5th, and the unit was one of the most-respected in the war.
The lesson, I suppose, is that combat is hard for everyone, line troops and commanders both. No one wants to be told to disregard their lives, that they should think of themselves as already dead. But without the discipline to act without regard for safety that martinets try to make second-nature, automatic-response, few people could bear the stress of combat. This is also a reason the officers are not allowed to fraternize with enlisted troops--It's just too hard to order your best friend to go die.
As for the volunteers, the story doesn't allow time for the kind of losses you refer to. Remember that the first groups to go over in '42 (as the 306/918th did --especially the leadership) were all pre-war AAF. (Gately is West Point, son and grandson of general officers.) Their biggest lack was that few had seen any combat, ever--or dealt with the losses. Although leaders were alarmed at early casualties, the devastating losses you're talking about really began to pile up on the unescorted missions to Germany.
Men who volunteered on Dec 8 would have been ready to fly into combat after basic, OCS, basic flight, and bomber training --between abt Oct-Dec 42--under leaders who had been serving between 3 and 10 yrs. Check the dates on the O Club walls--it's mid-'43 in the story, The first actual mission from England was by the 97th BG on 4 July 42. The script says Savage led the first ten missions himself. The first mission to Germany was 27 Jan 43--again, led by Savage weeks after he replaces Col Davenport. The first ball-bearing mission to Schweinfurt (and Regensburg) was 17 Aug 43, *months* after Savage replaces Davenport--losses: 60 of 376 planes. The second Schweinfurt attack (14 Oct) lost 60 of 291 planes, with 138 more damaged.
No, this story is about the strain of combat on everyone, not just professionals vs volunteers.

(Aside to those who commented on Armstrong's ulcer--bleeding ulcers hardly ever come from diet, especially diet alone, and very especially the bland diet most prevalent in England in the '40s. They come from the overactive gastric juices responding to stress by eating holes in your stomach lining.)

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

You seem to miss the POINT of Situational Leadership - it uses the leadership style MOST appropriate for the given situation. Often it incorporates all of those other models you are discussing. In a perfect world, it WOULD work universally because it is appropriate to ANY given situation.

[–] theotherpilot 19 years ago

Your last statement says it all. That's why civilians don't fight wars.
Soldiers do it. Tough ones who know what it takes to "influence and direct men so as to obtain their willful obedience" (Infantry Leader's Handbook)

Here's the other side of it:
Maybe leaders of most modern organizations maintain the profit margin, but anyone of them who tried to act that way in a combat situation would find them selves in a line of body bags.

Let's hear from some who have heard shots fired in anger.....and had to duck.

[–] buckboard 19 years ago

I'll leave the fine points of leadership in the able hands of Mr. Baker and his excellent post.

Davenport had lost control of his unit and himself. The 306th was unable to effectively "answer the bell." This occurred because Davenport became overly-loss conscious and either did not or could not delegate responsibility (Gately was skating through an easy war and the lead navigator was given a "pass" on a botched mission where men were killed as a result, and the lack of discipline in the group indicates also in many other areas). The point was Davenport was a first-rate guy as a human being but had become a washout as a commander. He wasn't doing his men any favors being solicitous to them and having them die at rates higher than in the other groups.

Savage didn't remove him, either--General Pritchard did, and decisively. It was war, not business, and war at a time when the Americans in England were "hanging on by their fingernails." The offering of the transfers was a tactical mistake by Savage--he thought he would throw the book at a few malcontents and restore command in the group. Instead morale had been so destroyed that he wound up with a mutiny--yes, a mutiny. Savage's plan saved their self-respect and restored them as a first-rate fighting unit. THAT'S why they withdrew their requests for transfer.

Military command in combat is not a question of popularity. Officers in Civil War regiments were elected on the basis of popularity, often with disastrous results. The film makes it quite clear the men of the 918th had reached their nadir as soldiers and airmen--Savage's treatment was to "break them down and build them back up." WHile his style turns you off, you might do well to contemplate that the story is based on true events, the character of Savage was based on a real person, and the story written by two men (incl one of the screenwriters) who served with the real-life "General Savage" and admired him greatly.

[–] r-rainwater 19 years ago

My late father flew 35 missions in the 8th Air Force, serving as a flight engineer on a B-24 in the 467th Bomb Group. Among his missions were the first daylight raid over Berlin and two flights on D-Day.

While he jokingly commented that "12 O'clock High" featured the "wrong" airplane (echoing the "irreconcilable differences" between those who flew the B-24 and B-17), he nevertheless acknowledged this movie as being a near-perfect representation of the challenges facing those who flew daylight precision bombing.

His commander, the late COL Albert Shower, was such a strict commander (martinet?) that he had the nickname of "Black Al." His leadership style was much like GEN Savage's. As a result of his insisting on excellence in all unit activities, the 467th set the record for the best bombing accuracy in the European theater. (COL Shower was the ONLY group commander who took his unit to England for combat and flew it home at the end of hostilities.)

I was honored to attend a 467th Reunion in 1982, the last one my dad attended before his death, where I met COL Shower and spoke to many of my dad's unit members. TO A MAN they considered "Black Al" to be an exceptional leader. More than one characterized him as "hard but fair." Good military leadership qualities, to be sure. These men, heroes all, knew first-hand how "repellant" are war and the necessities of leadership's imposition of hardship and danger required to win wars. Yet, each man's contribution to that war effort enobled him for all time.

I remember my mother mentioning that when she and Dad first saw the movie (only a few years after his actual combat flying tour), she noticed Dad having a "white knuckle experience" as he gripped the seat arms so hard during the combat scenes.

I had a similar experience during "Apocalypse Now" and understood what Dad must have been feeling: The helicopter unit which is featured in the early part of the movie, commanded by Robert Duvall's character, "the first of the 9th" (1st Squadron, 9th Air Cavalry), was the unit I served with in Vietnam as a helicopter pilot. White knuckles all the way for me, too, as I watched the assault on the Vietnamese village full of "Charlie."

"Hard but fair." Works in "12 O'clock High." Worked in real life.

[–] dallen133033 19 years ago

Wow, I feel like i'm caught in a time warp.
My father was also a member of the 467th, a navigator of B24's. He was shot down over Berlin on April 29th 1944; survived the winter "death march" from Sagan and was liberated by Patton's forces on April 29th 1945.
His reaction's were as you described whenever he viewed TOH. He consistaintly remarked about the realisism of the combat scenes as well as the garrison life. I remember asking him way he had so few medals considering all that he had endured. His response; "COL Shower did not reward you for doing your job!."
I viewed TOH many times during my youth, both with and without my father. I was very surpriseed when during a college course on Business Leadership that TOH was shown as an example for leadership study. That one showing, and the rabid debate afterwrd, changed my life. I understood from first hand knowledge the importance of setting high standards and being consistant in your decisions.
By the way, I also served our great country as a UH-1 Pilot (post Vietnam). I served as Pilot In Command; Operation Officer; Executive Officer and later as Staff Officer. The leasons on TOH haunted me; guided me; and saved my life on more than a few occasions. Just becasue the news doesn't report a war; that does not mean that men don't die and bullets stop flying.
My personal opinion; if more political and corporate leaders would use the leassons of TOH, this country would be in much better shape.

But most importantly; to you sir, "Thank you for your service."

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

an exceptional leader. More than one characterized him as "hard but fair." Good military leadership qualities

I spent 22.5 years in the Navy Reserve, but also worked as a civilian for nine year; married a Sailor and even after retirement, he's worked on a Navy Base. In the last 25 years, we've lived on Bases over 15 years. I've often said (in reference to my own and my husband's COs, Div Os, whatever) that I don't care if they rip me a new one if I screw up (I pretty well expect it), if they will also go to the very gates of Hell when I'm right. THAT's who I want to work for - military OR civilian. As a leader, I WILL hold you accountable when you're wrong, but I'll also stand up to anyone when you are right. As a First Class (E-6), I also knew when it was time to bring in the 'big guns' - the Chief, and even told more than one that I thought it was time to bring in someone with at least one star on that anchor.....

[–] papa1 19 years ago

The military is a modern organization and civilians might do well to pattern some of their leadership after the movie. George

[–] mcrutcher6797 19 years ago

Just a couple of comments on the "loathsomeness:"
1) BG Frank Savage (Peck) did not relieve Davenport (Merrill). That decision was taken by their superior, MG Pritchartd (played superbly by Millard Mitchell--see him also in Singing in the Rain & Winchester 73), who may have been modeled on Ira Eaker.
2) Twelve O'Clock High recounts some pretty desperate days early in the air war over Europe. Most people don't realize (and possibly don't care) that somewhere over 26,000 American airmen died over Europe in a campaign that set the stage for the Normandy invasion, made a significant contribution to Red Army victories on the Eastern Front (by causing the Germans to divert aircraft and large caliber guns to the Reich defense). Daylight precision bombing was a new concept that probably only has reached its potential with laser-guided and gps-guided bombs. The cost was terrible; for example, in the October 1943 raid on Schweinfurt, 61 of 299 B-17s were shot down, perhaps a dozen or more also written off as too heavily damaged to repair.
3) Difficult times called for severe measures. Officers were often relieved for ineffectiveness, and "feeling sorry for yourself and your men" rapidly leads to ineffectiveness--of individuals and of units.
4) Service in the military is never like working in "most modern (commercial, public, whatever) organizations, particularly when the survival of the country was very much at stake. Looking back from the vantage point of the first decade of the 21st century, it looks like WWII was a slam-dunk. But from the viewpoint of early 1942 through maybe late 1943 or 1944 it was anything but that. And for the guys of the "Mighty 8th" it stayed very rough until the P-51's showed up in sufficient numbers to escort the bombers to Berlin & back. Get into a B-17 and see how small it is and then imagine a mission of 10 hours at 25,000 ft at 45 degrees below zero. Here's a web site about the psychological stresses that make this movie seem more realistic than we thought: http://www.uk-us.org/stinet/physiologicalbombercrews.pdf
5) Also, regarding your remark about BG Savage breaking down, the real point is that he cracked under the stress he had put on himself. The really neat thing was that when Gately (formerly of the Leper Colony) asked Savage if he wanted him to lead the mission, Savage said "no, have Gately take it." He was that much in shock.
6) FINALLY, this movie was made in 1949 when there were lots of 8th AF veterans around to "hoot it out of town" if it were phony. They didn't, and this is one of the best and most informative "war movies" ever made.
7) Finally, finally, we all owe a vote of thanks to the men of the "Mighty 8th." The ones that didn't come back, the ones who have since passed away, and the few who remain among us. Thanks, guys.

[–] smiley-39 19 years ago

Hello, mcrutcher6797.
Read your post on the 8th Air Force. I was still at school in those now far off, never-to-be-forgotton days. I sometimes counted them on formation assembly going eastbound for the the coast. To count the same number coming back was a very rare occasion indeed! Brave men...all of them. I think "Twelve O'Clock High" is a great tribute to thos combat crews. One of my first comments on this website was about this movie.
Cheerio and all the best. smiley-39.

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

To #7..... AMEN

[–] Chaco1942 19 years ago

My understanding is that this movie is used in "Leadership Training" courses at West Point, but only to demonstrate the extreme stress that commanders are subject to, not to present the General Savage character as a commander whose methods are to be admired.

After all, it is only a movie.

[–] buckboard 19 years ago

You understand incorrectly. The Air Force no longer uses it but when they did, it was to present to recruits and cadets an understanding of their responsibilities to the team (unit), and to present differing leadership styles. The Navy still uses it in training discussions on leadership. So do many corporations. The tactics Savage used were not heinous, unscrupulous, or any other negative you might want to throw on them. The whole point of the book and film was that his style--and the results he achieved--were admired. In this instance.